January 4, 2023
OPB "In the News" Article Here
The above article was published by a local "news" source. Although the companies mission statement claims "Oregon Public Broadcasting: giving voice to the community, connecting Oregon and its neighbors, illuminating a wider world." the article reads like a PR article presented by the Portland Water Bureau.
We expect more from our local community news source. We expect that they actually take the time to provide accurate, unbiased information.
The Cottrell CPO one of the local organizations that have put together a response to the misleading information in the above article.
OPB "In the News" Article Here
The above article was published by a local "news" source. Although the companies mission statement claims "Oregon Public Broadcasting: giving voice to the community, connecting Oregon and its neighbors, illuminating a wider world." the article reads like a PR article presented by the Portland Water Bureau.
We expect more from our local community news source. We expect that they actually take the time to provide accurate, unbiased information.
The Cottrell CPO one of the local organizations that have put together a response to the misleading information in the above article.
COTTRELL CPO RESPONSE:
ARTICLE states: "In 2017, The Oregon Health Authority ordered the city of Portland to treat its water for cryptosporidium, by building a new filtration system by 2027"
CORRECTION: The OHA did not order the City to build a filtration system. With the detection of crypto, the EPA required the City of Portland to treat its water with an effective method. The City, not OHA, decided on filtration (not UV or another method successfully used by large cities like San Francisco, Seattle and New York). With this decision, OHA - acting on behalf of the EPA - then issued their formal agreement that the City provide treatment by 2027. This is a bit nuanced but very important. Filtration is not required and no local or federal agency is mandating filtration. By stating that filtration is required is misleading the public into thinking this is a necessary project and the financial burden they will bear is warranted.
ARTICLE states: "Inman said …. “And then we’re going to treat it with disinfectants…”"
COMMENT: This once pristine drinking water is now proposed to be treated/processed with some 8,000 dry tons/year of chemicals [PWB 2018 estimate].
ARTICLE states: "The filtration system is expected to cost around $1 billion."
CORRECTION: In 2017 the filtration plant was approved by the Portland City Council at a cost of $350M. The filtration system and the extensive pipelines required to route the water to and from the main conduit were estimated in 2020 at $1.2B+, and now the cost w/o escalation is $1.45B. Either dollar figure is more than what you state, a number significant enough to report on. No updated project costs have been officially provided to the public in nearly 3 years.
ARTICLE states: "The Bull Run Watershed Provides water for …. [customers listed]…."
COMMENT: Although PWB continues to present this list of their wholesale customers, which make up about 40% of the demand for water, it is misleading, because as an OPB November 6, 2019 article points out [https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-water-bureau-customers-filtration-plant-tualatin-valley-gresham/], customers could be leaving and now we know that they are leaving and not renewing their 2026 contracts, i.e., Gresham, Rockwood and Tualatin. Departing customers will no longer share the cost of the project and water rates will increase even more.
This article appears to be a press release for the Water Bureau, with no updates on the proposal.
NOTE:
The City will not meet the federal 2027 deadline because they have a very long legal battle ahead of them due to their project site choice. Thus far, the City has submitted an incomplete land use application to the County and “if" this proposal makes it through the County’s hearings officer, it is guaranteed to go to LUBA, with various lawsuits on the horizon.
ARTICLE states: "In 2017, The Oregon Health Authority ordered the city of Portland to treat its water for cryptosporidium, by building a new filtration system by 2027"
CORRECTION: The OHA did not order the City to build a filtration system. With the detection of crypto, the EPA required the City of Portland to treat its water with an effective method. The City, not OHA, decided on filtration (not UV or another method successfully used by large cities like San Francisco, Seattle and New York). With this decision, OHA - acting on behalf of the EPA - then issued their formal agreement that the City provide treatment by 2027. This is a bit nuanced but very important. Filtration is not required and no local or federal agency is mandating filtration. By stating that filtration is required is misleading the public into thinking this is a necessary project and the financial burden they will bear is warranted.
ARTICLE states: "Inman said …. “And then we’re going to treat it with disinfectants…”"
COMMENT: This once pristine drinking water is now proposed to be treated/processed with some 8,000 dry tons/year of chemicals [PWB 2018 estimate].
ARTICLE states: "The filtration system is expected to cost around $1 billion."
CORRECTION: In 2017 the filtration plant was approved by the Portland City Council at a cost of $350M. The filtration system and the extensive pipelines required to route the water to and from the main conduit were estimated in 2020 at $1.2B+, and now the cost w/o escalation is $1.45B. Either dollar figure is more than what you state, a number significant enough to report on. No updated project costs have been officially provided to the public in nearly 3 years.
ARTICLE states: "The Bull Run Watershed Provides water for …. [customers listed]…."
COMMENT: Although PWB continues to present this list of their wholesale customers, which make up about 40% of the demand for water, it is misleading, because as an OPB November 6, 2019 article points out [https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-water-bureau-customers-filtration-plant-tualatin-valley-gresham/], customers could be leaving and now we know that they are leaving and not renewing their 2026 contracts, i.e., Gresham, Rockwood and Tualatin. Departing customers will no longer share the cost of the project and water rates will increase even more.
This article appears to be a press release for the Water Bureau, with no updates on the proposal.
NOTE:
The City will not meet the federal 2027 deadline because they have a very long legal battle ahead of them due to their project site choice. Thus far, the City has submitted an incomplete land use application to the County and “if" this proposal makes it through the County’s hearings officer, it is guaranteed to go to LUBA, with various lawsuits on the horizon.
